I wonder what would happen if I were to invade a meeting of the Connectional Table…. I could march in with a few of my like-minded friends and begin singing about the fact that people with Down Syndrome, including children, are routinely denied organ transplants. Consider the case of Annie Golden Heart (you can find her on Facebook). This child is dying and cannot receive a heart transplant. As I’ve blogged about before, the lives of people with disabilities–and particularly intellectual disabilities–simply don’t rate as highly as those considered typical.
If I disrupted the business of the Connectional Table with this matter–or with the problem that the standard practice of pre-natal screening results in termination of up to 90% of pregnancies when Down Syndrome is detected–would I get three days of dialogue? Would I get national coverage from the news outlets of the UMC? If I shut down the bar of general conference because of this, would I then get to make demands regarding legislative priorities? Somehow, I’m doubtful.
Bishop Dyck recently vented her spleen in public on the matter of homosexuality and the possibility of the division of the UMC. Where is the righteous indignation from our bishops over the welcoming of families who have children with autism, Down Syndrome, mental illness, or other cognitive/intellectual disabilities? Apart from Bishop Johnson, who is advocating for these people? Despite the many so-called “progressives” who espouse a deep concern for social justice, I just don’t see people lining up to address life-and-death matters that relate to people with disabilities. Progress–real progress–will come when we teach and live out the theological claim that people of all abilities matter equally.
David F. Watson 
We are much better these days at “issues” rather than the oikos/economy of the whole. Some of us at annual/jurisidctional/general conferences look like NASCAR drivers with all our endorsements. A cross might be sufficient…
I agree, Sky. I suppose I’m guilty of some of that, too. Thanks for the comment.
I think of what would Jesus reach out to, what would draw his attention, if he were in a crowd which he usually was, who would attract his attention the most. We must remember that Jesus attracted a lot of people that were not considered desirable by most of the town folks. He was attracted to who were unable to help themselves, and my guess would be the children. He would reach out to the very children that were considered undesirable be the people, the very same children that you talk about Dr. Watson. So why does the church turn from them.
I wish I knew, Bill. There are probably many reasons. To be clear, some churches do a great job with this. I just wish that our concern for these children was more pronounced.
You could try it and see. But have you first submitted legislation on this at your annual conference or sent a petition to General Conference? I’m not aware of The UMC making restrictions against people with Down Syndrome since 1972. LGBT supporters have acted as they have as a last resort because every other option has failed. The US is beginning to understand lgbt rights. The UMC does not.
David, you excite the whole house to thinking with analogs like this. Indeed, why is it that “outrage” seems to have been taken over by such a narrow slice of proprietary concern? Why should we be dreading General Conference because of this bogeyman? It’s out of proportion to the whole, like the Connectional Table itself…out of balance, skewed to the sectarian left.
Yep. My point is not that we should quit talking about human sexuality. It’s that it occupies too much of our attention. Thanks for posting.
You have GOT to be kidding. The United Methodist Church has not declared Down’s Syndrome to be “incompatible with Christian Teaching.” The United Methodist Church does not make extending the ministry of the church to people with Down’s Syndrome a “chargeable offense.” The analogy is perverse. You (and your thinking) are much better than this, David.
Jon, the fact that you find the analogy “perverse” speaks to the lack of seriousness with which so many in the UM take this problem. You clearly disagree with the perspective expressed in the discipline around homosexual practice, but at least the cause you seem to care about most is getting talked about. The resolution at the last GC around disabilities failed to make it into any printed material. Annual conferences are, for the most part, ignoring the resolution that one of the four annual conferences in the next quadrennium should take disability as its topic. I can’t get higher ups in the UMC (with the exception of Peggy Johnson) to return my emails about this matter. What is perverse is the blind eye we turn toward these people.
You certainly can argue that the church is not doing “enough” for people with disabilities, but there are numerous statements about ministry to and with people with disabilities throughout the BoD and Book of Resolutions. There certainly are no statements singling such persons out as being “Incompatible with Christian teaching” or making any form of ministry to/with them a chargeable offense. The analogy is simply not there.
Jon, you and I just aren’t going to agree on this. That’s fine. But I am not backing off of the basic claim that the wellbeing of people with disabilities is every bit as important as our language around human sexuality, though it receives only a small fraction of the attention in the public sphere.
If my wife and I were to conduct a wedding ceremony for our son with Asperger’s (not an immediate possibility), assuming he was marrying a woman, the only difficulty we might have with our Bishop is the possibility his feelings would be hurt that we hadn’t asked HIM to preside. Contrast that with the treatment given to Frank Schaefer and it’s obvious we aren’t talking about the same neighborhood.